WHY DO YOU BELIEVE IN EVOLUTION?

> Home

> Big Bang

> Origin of Life

> Genetics

> Mutations

> Genetic Recombination

> Natural Selection

> Fossil Evidence

> Stasis

> "Junk" DNA

> Endogenous Retroviruses

	"But Eldredge and I proposed that stasis should be an expected and interesting norm (not an embarrassing failure to detect change), and that evolution should be concentrated in brief episodes of branching speciation. Under our theory, stasis became interesting and worthy of documentation -- as a norm disrupted by rare events of change.” —Stephen J. Gould Ardent evolutionist (deceased), Alexander Agassiz Professor of Zoology, Professor of Geology, Biology, and the History of Science at Harvard, curator for Invertebrate Paleontology at Harvard’s Museum of Comparative Zoology, ‘Cordelia's Dilemma, Dinosaur in a Haystack’ Harmony Books, New York, 1995, p. 127-128.

Stasis

Why don't we see living organisms actively evolving into something else?

Everything should be in perpetual transition and we should see a hodge-podge of everything - No defined trees, flowers, insects, fish, amphibians, mammals, birds, etc. By the evolutionist’s own definition, changes should be continually creating something beyond just another specie, otherwise how does evolution work?
http://www.icr.org/home/resources/resources_tracts_scientificcaseagainstevolution/

Evolutionists claim that incremental changes are so miniscule that we would never identify any organism as being ‘transitional.’ But, how do organisms evolve a new feature or a major modification of an existing feature if nothing visibly changes?

SHOULDN’T WE SEE:

• Scales incrementally evolving into feathers (or fur or skin)?
• Fins incrementally evolving into legs?
• Legs incrementally evolving into wings?
• At least one new feature evolving?

Regardless of how miniscule incremental changes are, at some point in a transition that continues beyond speciation (1/10, 1/4, 1/2, 3/4 or 9/10 through it), wouldn’t things start to look a little odd? Also, where are all those new features in existing organisms that have never been seen before? After all, if evolution is still occurring around us, what are the chances that the features we see in organisms today would be identical to new features evolving now? Wouldn’t new organisms and features pop up once in a while?

Why are some organisms that exist today virtually no different from fossils of organisms dating up to 450-million-years-old? What would stop one organism from perpetual change and then allow unlimited change in another?
http://www.icr.org/article/2824/
http://amnh.org/exhibitions/amber/index.html
http://www.arn.org/docs/orpages/or122/thomas.htm

EVOLUTIONISTS HAVE COME UP WITH A THEORY THAT ADDRESSES THIS VERY PROBLEM. IT'S CALLED STASIS, WHICH STATES THAT EVOLUTION MAY STOP FOR LONG PERIODS OF TIME IN SOME SPECIES …

BUT WHY IS EVERYTHING CURRENTLY IN STASIS?

Evolutionists claim that the environment and climate along niches of other organisms will inhibit additional organisms from evolving. But, weather, terrain, and populations perpetually fluctuate so it’s a moot point.

	"Major questions posed by zoologists cannot be answered from inside the neo-Darwinian straitjacket. Such questions include, for example, 'How do new structures arise in evolution?' 'Why, given so much environmental change, is stasis so prevalent in evolution as seen in the fossil record?' 'How did one group of organisms or set of macromolecules evolve from another?' The importance of these questions is not at issue; it is just that neo-Darwinians, restricted by their presuppositions, cannot answer them." —Lynn Margulis Professor of Microbial Evolution and Organelle Heredity, University of Massachusetts and Dorian Sagan, write - 1997. Slanted Truths: Essays on Gaia, Symbiosis and Evolution. New York: Springer-Verlag, Inc., p.100.